Euglossa (Euglossella) cetera Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel, 2014

Hinojosa-Díaz, Ismael A. & Engel, Michael S., 2014, Revision of the orchid bee subgenus Euglossella (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Part II: The viridis and mandibularis species groups, Journal of Melittology 36, pp. 1-108 : 57-60

Euglossa (Euglossella) cetera Hinojosa-Díaz & Engel , new species

ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:4678B186-8F4F-4454-9CC3-3A8E0A5D3958

( Figs. 80–83 , 170 )

DIAGNOSIS: Labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching first metasomal sternum; upper and lower interorbital distances equal (at most marginally different) ( Fig. 82 ); malar area short (less than 0.25 mm, or noticeably shorter than diameter of mid-flagellar articles) ( Fig. 82 ); pronotal dorsolateral angle projected as a lamella; mesoscutellar tuft ovoid, composed of dense, dark setae, occupying two thirds of mesoscutellum length ( Fig. 80 ); metabasitarsus with anterior margin appearing straight (subtle convexity), posterior margin straight ( Fig. 83 ); width of metasoma and head only marginally different (much less than 1.05 times) ( Fig. 80 ); head green ( Fig. 82 ); scape with upper third of outer surface with yellowish spot ( Fig. 82 ); mesosoma and metasomal terga green ( Figs. 80–81 ); mesoscutellum moderately punctate (punctures separated by one puncture diameter) ( Fig. 80 ); mesepisternum densely punctate (punctures contiguous in central areas) ( Fig. 81 ); metasomal terga densely and evenly imbricate-punctate ( Fig. 80 ); mesosomal vestiture dominated by fuscous setae, slightly darker than in other species ( Figs. 80–81 ).

DESCRIPTION: ♀: Structure. Total body length 9.93 mm (9.85–10.07; n=4); labiomaxillary complex in repose reaching first metasomal sternum ( Fig. 81 ). Head length 2.84 mm (2.78–2.89; n=4); head width 4.46 mm (4.36–4.53; n=4); upper interorbital distance 2.15 mm (n=4); lower interorbital distance 2.07 mm (2.00–2.11; n=4); upper clypeal width 1.12 mm (1.11–1.15; n=4); lower clypeal width 1.83 mm (1.78–1.85; n=4); clypeal protuberance 0.70 mm (0.59–0.74; n=4); clypeal ridges, labral ridges, and labral windows as described for E. viridis ; labrum rectangular, wider than long, length 0.86 mm (0.81–0.89; n=4), width 1.04 mm (1.01–1.07; n=4); anterior margin of labrum arched outwards with subapical carina ( Fig. 82 ); interocellar distance 0.35 mm (0.33–0.37; n=4); ocellocular distance 0.60 mm (0.59–0.61; n=4); first flagellar article longer [0.51 mm (0.48–0.52; n=4)] than second and third flagellar articles combined [0.34 mm (0.33–0.37; n=4)]; length of malar area 0.15 mm (n=4). Mandible tridentate. Pronotal dorsolateral angle as in E. viridis ; intertegular distance 3.40 mm (3.33–3.48; n=4); mesoscutal length 2.62 mm (2.52–2.70; n=4); mesoscutellar length 1.19 mm (1.18–1.19; n=4); posterior margin of mesoscutellum as in E. viridis ( Fig. 80 ); mesotibial length 2.06 mm (2.00–2.11; n=4); mesobasitarsal length 1.87 mm (1.85–1.93; n=4), maximum width 0.62 mm (0.59– 0.67; n=4); metatibia triangular (right triangle) ( Fig. 83 ); metatibial anterior margin length 2.97 mm (2.89–3.07; n=4); metatibial ventral margin length 1.94 mm (1.78–2.04; n=4); metatibial postero-dorsal margin length 3.38 mm (3.26–3.48; n=4); metabasitarsal length 1.54 mm (1.48–1.56; n=4), proximal margin width 0.89 mm (0.81–0.96; n=4). Forewing length 8.17 mm (8.00–8.37; n=4); hind wing with 18–20 (n=4) hamuli. Maximum metasomal width 4.49 mm (4.41–4.52; n=4).

Coloration. Generally as described for females of E. perviridis , only with stronger golden-bronzy iridescence throughout and scape with yellow spot on upper third laterally ( Figs. 80–83 ).

Sculpturing. As described for male (and for female) of E. perviridis ( Figs. 80–82 ).

Vestiture. Head, mesosoma, and metasoma as in E. viridis ( Figs. 80–82 ). Mesoscutellar tuft ovoid, otherwise as in females of E. viridis / azurea ( Fig. 80 ); corbicula as in females of E. viridis / azurea ( Fig. 83 ).

♂: Unknown

ETYMOLOGY: The specific epithet is taken from the Latin word cetera , meaning “the rest”, as a reference to the presence of more than one superficially-similar species.

HOLOTYPE: ♀, Venezuela : “ VENEZUELA: Amaz. [Amazonas]; Pto. Ayacucho; 27 IV1967; R. L. Dressler 652 [mixed handwritten]” ( FSCA).

PARATYPES (3♀♀): Venezuela : 3♀♀, all with label data as holotype (two in FSCA, one in SEMC) .

COMMENTS: When Dressler (1985) described E. perviridis , then known solely from males, he mentioned the occurrence of green-colored females of Euglossella in the Guiana Shield region and alluded to the possibility that they might belong to his species but refrained from assigning them to any known species. Some of the females mentioned there (Dressler, 1985) are likely part of the series here included as E. cetera and E. cupella (see next description, infra), as all the specimens for these two species were collected by Dressler in 1967.

Despite the challenge posed by associating males and females for many species of Euglossa s.l. given the conserved morphology of the latter, we feel confident in describing three new species — E. cetera and the two species that follow. There is sufficient morphological evidence to make us confident that these may be separated from the others while simultaneously believing they do not belong with any of those species known solely from males. In the case of E. cetera , the females are recognizable from other species by the shape of the metabasitarsus, which has both anterior and posterior margins noticeably straight (the anterior one only faintly and weakly convex at most and in certain views), giving it the appearance of a truncate cone ( Fig. 83 ). This feature is easily noticeable when comparing specimens of this species to other females in the group, especially with the other green-bodied species, including E. perviridis , and particularly with E. cupella and E. ashei (refer to diagnoses for those species, infra). This character has proven to be important taxonomically for most groups of Euglossa s.l., and is stable within species while its differences are consistent among species. Another feature present in all E. cetera is the presence of a yellowish spot on the uppermost part of the outer surface of the scape ( Fig. 82 ), which is not known in other females in the group.

We consider the possibility that these females, or those of either of the following two species, are associated with males of other viridis group species occurring in the same regions (i.e., E. viridis and E. azurea ) to be exceedingly unlikely. We have addressed previously those females which belong to E. viridis and E. azurea , and those individuals we are placing in E. cetera , E. cupella , and E. ashei cannot be ascribed to the aforementioned two taxa without rendering their circumscriptions meaningless, even with the conservative taxonomic position we have tried to adopt. Given the scarcity of female records, it is hoped that the establishment of these new species and bringing their presence known to melittologists interested in orchid bees will encourage further surveys from these regions. From such work we will hopefully discover further material upon which to test our hypotheses as to species diversity, refine our concepts of their circumscription and variation, and reveal the hitherto unknown males. The four known specimens of E. cetera are from Puerto Ayacucho, State of Amazonas, Venezuela ( Fig. 170 ).

Figures

Figure 170. Collection localities for species of Euglossella Moure, viridis and mandibularis species groups [also showing localities for females attributable only to Euglossa (Euglossella) viridis (Perty)/azurea Ducke]. Locality points are based on examined specimens.

Figures 80–81. Euglossa (Euglossella) cetera, new species, female holotype. 80. Dorsal habitus. 81. Lateral habitus.

Figures 82–83. Euglossa (Euglossella) cetera, new species, female holotype. 82. Facial aspect. 83. Outer view of hind leg.